WHERE'S THE SISTERHOOD?: Some feminist writing claims non-adversarial methods and conciliatory approaches should replace patriarchal things like wars and aggressive court trials. But are pacifism and feminism always mutually complementary? Phyllis Chesler recalls a debate among feminists about the Taliban:

Many feminists enjoyed talking about the plight of Afghan women under the Taliban; and why not? This tragedy proved that Feminism 101 was right all along, that men really did oppress women. But few of the televised feminist talking heads wanted to systematically sponsor Afghan women as immigrants or as political refugees. I know because I suggested, privately, that the anti-Taliban American feminists do so. Needless to say, these feminists did not want to launch a military invasion of Afghanistan on behalf of women either. I know. I raised this idea many times. All I got were pitying looks.

I guess that's exactly the problem with feminism - unless you agree with all the platform, even the crazy extremist bits, you'll always be a traitor.

While I think feminists should have been fully supportive of any attempt, military or otherwise, to liberate the women who suffered so much under the Taliban; the reluctance of the idealogues in the feminist movement to embrace anything outside their narrow definition of liberal feminism was not surprising.

Pacificism is viewed as a feminine virtue by some, but to me, authentic feminism encompasses a desire to see wrongs righted and the oppressed freed, by military means if all else fails.

What do you expect from the feminists? Its about abortion. As long as Bill Clinton supported abortion the feminists looked the other way while Monica Lewinsky was on her knees. Islam is opposed to abortion, therefore less important issues like honor killings and stonings go unaddressed by the feminists. What a bunch of hypocrits.